Meeting Details

There were no apologies for absence received.

Councillor Bennett declared an interest in item 6 and would be speaking as Ward Member so Councillor Fisher would chair that item.

Councillor Smithson declared she was a member of the Felixstowe Society but not had any discussions about item 6.

There were no declarations of lobbying made.

On the proposal of Councillor Hedgley, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey, it was unanimously

RESOLVED 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 May 2026 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2826 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which provided a summary of the status of all outstanding enforcement cases for East Suffolk Council where enforcement action had been sanctioned under delegated confirmed powers up until 26 May 2026.

The Enforcement Officer gave verbal updates on the following four cases:

A.6 The Old Post Office, Sandy Lane, Waldringfield – an enforcement visit has been undertaken and the fence remains in place so there has not been compliance. The next steps are being reviewed.

A.7 7 Main Road, Westerfield - an appeal has been submitted so we will need to await the results of the appeal.

B.2 Animal Welfare Centre, 333 High Street, Walton – the appeal was upheld and the enforcement notice quashed, but it has had appropriate conditions imposed by the inspector.

B.5 The Old Golf Shop, Newbourne Road, Waldringfield - the appeal was dismissed so enforcement is live again. There is also a live planning application for the use that will need to be determined.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about B.5 and if they were putting in an application. The Enforcement Officer explained that the compliance period has started again but there is a planning application for this property which needs to be determined. Enforcement action will depend on the outcome of that application.

Councillor Hedgley thanked the Enforcement Officer for his help with a case in his ward recently.

Councillor Reeves asked for an update on F.1. It is 6 years since any update. The Enforcement Officer said it wasn’t in his area so he would need to ask his colleagues. He believed that compliance had been achieved and it is just the legal process that is ongoing. The Planning Manager said there were no issues on site but there were significant costs to the council that they are trying to recover. It is likely to remain on the sheet for a long time. The breach of planning has been remedied though.

On the proposition of Councillor Daly, seconded by Councillor Reeves it was unanimously

RESOLVED 

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 26 May 2026 be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2828 which related to application DC/25/4807/FUL and a presentation from the Planning Manager. The proposal sought to erect a new front boundary wall with metal railings and vehicle gates. There was a previous application in 2025 which was withdrawn following officer feedback. The application triggered the Planning Referral Panel Process because Felixstowe Town Council objected to the application, which is contrary to the ‘minded to’ recommendation of officers.

The Planning Manager explained that SCLP 11.1 and 11.2 were the policies being called into question and considered.

Members were shown the site location plan, existing and proposed block plans and photos of the site and surrounding area to give context. The Planning Manager highlighted the pleasant suburban setting. There was a range of front boundary treatments in the area. He pointed out that the property was next to a listed building. 

The Planning Manager showed the proposed site entrance plan and elevations. He explained that the gates are set back 5 metres from the highway. It would be a combination of brick walls and pillars with slatted metal fence and he showed examples of the railings and gate.

The Planning Manager shared details of a similar application at No30 which was approved. It was noted that what has been constructed is currently subject to a retrospective planning application. He showed the mix of boundary treatments in the area, of brick walls, hedging and timber fencing.

He ran through the planning considerations and pointed out that the critical issue from the Town Council’s comments are policies SCLP 11.1 and 11.2. However the recommendation was to approve.

Councillor Daly asked what changed between the previous application and the current application. The Planning Manager said the changes were relatively minor. There was a wider appreciation by the officers of the wider context of the area. The Council has taken a strong position on boundary treatments in the past but they have not always been successful on appeal. The listed building next door is a consideration however the Officer judgement on balance was to recommend approval.

Councillor Smithson asked if just partial hedging was being removed and not the hedging to the left of the building, adjacent to the listed building. The Planning Manager confirmed that a section would be lost at the front but it would remain along the long boundary with the listed building.

Councillor Reeves noted that Highways gave approval because it was moved back 5 metres. He asked if the gates were electronic or would have to be shut manually. The Planning Manager said they could be manual so there was a scenario where a car could be blocking the pavement temporarily.

Councillor Bird from Felixstowe Town Council was invited to speak. He explained that the Town Council was opposed and have held the same view on all three applications. The application was jarring and incongruous to the street scene. The majority of properties have open frontages or low walls. This proposal was out of context when compared to the existing hedge. He cited policies SCLP 11.1 and 11.2. This application would introduce a harsh physical barrier which was contrary to these policies. It would lead to a conceptual change of the physical narrative where the buildings contribute to the street scene. He pointed out that the planning officer quoted SCPL 7.2 regarding parking standards. The Town Council felt this policy cannot defend this application as it is irrelevant. 

Councillor Hedgley asked if there were other dwellings on that road that had a similar frontage of brick and metal. Councillor Bird said No.30 on the other side has very open railings on a low parapet wall although they accept there have been modifications. The view from the road or opposite the property will give the view of a solid structure.

Councillor Deacon asked if the Town Council made reference to the next door property. Councillor Bird said they had considered the amenity and relationship with other properties. The listed building does have a brick wall as its frontage but that was there before the neighbouring properties were even built. This would be a significant change as it would create a solid mass of brick and metal. It might not distract from it but it doesn’t enhance the neighbouring building. 

Councillor Bennett was invited to speak as Ward Member. He explained that he lives on the same road, about 300m away, so knows the road well. He thought it would be a significant change that would lead to a gated community feel, which this area doesn’t currently have. There isn’t a security issue and this is a safe area. There are historic and softer frontages in the area. Allowing this application would be out of keeping with the current scene and detract from the view. 

He also had safety concerns as the road was very busy. Pedestrians use it a lot going in and out of town. Cars having to stop and visibility is slightly dubious so he had concerns about the impact on walking and cycling traffic. He did not support this application and it was contrary to policies SCLP 11.1 and 11.2.

Councillor Smithson noted the house was modern with only a tiny bit of hedge currently. She was not sure she would even notice the change. If the residents want the inconvenience of closing gates that is their choice. She questioned if it really was out of character with the modern house.

Councillor Bennett said it was not out of character with the house but was out of character with the surrounding area. No.30 does have gates, although they don’t have permission, but it is very open with a low wall and iron poles so you can see through. This is much more enclosed with horizontal bars and slats.

The Planning Manager clarified Councillor Bird’s reference to SCLP 7.2. He explained that the policy is not supporting the application’s approval but is just covering off that element to make sure there is no conflict with that policy. He explained that the development at No.30 was not in accordance with the approved plans so a new application is being considered there and is still to be determined.

He explained that the changes between the previous application and this one were quite minimal. The applicant responded to feedback about the solid nature of the enclosure by including slats in-between the wall sections. 

Councillor Ninnmey was surprised that the distance from the gate to road would block the footpath as he felt the gap was big enough for a normal car although did wonder what would happen with a bigger vehicle.

The Planning Manager said if entry to the property was at the boundary the gates would have to open inwards. The 5m set back is national guidance. It is also about pedestrian visibility splays. The safety is covered off but there could be some minor inconvenience for the owner.

Councillor Hedgley did not think the design suited the area and they look garish and out of style. He believed policy SCLP 11.1c would be a reason for voting against the application.

Councillor Ninnmey noted that as he drives to Cockfosters in London nearly all the properties there are behind barricades and it feels intimidating. This area of Felixstowe was very safe. Putting in this style of fencing and gates was not in keeping and could lead to the changing of the area. They need to put in something softer.

Councillor Daly said he could see no significant changes since the last time it was turned down. The applicant hasn’t followed all the guidance offered by officers. The report says it is considered to comply with policies SCLP 11.1 and 11.2 but asked if Members thought it did. The feeling of fortification and how it could influence others was a worry.

Councillor Deacon agreed with the other councillors’ concerns. He was worried about the impact on the next door property which is one of the oldest in Felixstowe. 

Councillor Reeves did not like the design and it was jarring in this area. It was out of character and should be refused.

Councillor Smithson had concerns about the pedestrian element but you can’t judge if future developments would come as a result. Blocking the pavement would be an inconvenience. If this was on its own she would agree but it was a hotch potch in this area and you can’t even see the old house. She agreed with the officer recommendation.

Councillor Smithson proposed accepting the officer recommendation. There was no seconder so the motion failed.

Councillor Ninnmey proposed refusal on the grounds that are laid out in the Town Council’s objection.
 
On the proposition of Councillor Ninnmey seconded by Councillor Hedgley it was

RESOLVED

That the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies SCLP 11.1 and 11.2.

Councillor Bennett returned to the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2829 which related to application DC/26/0392/FUL and a presentation from the Senior Planner. Planning permission was sought for two rows of car port mounted solar PV arrays within the Deben Leisure Centre Car Park in Woodbridge.

The Senior Planner showed the site location plans and photographs. He explained that all parking spaces would be retained. There would be two arrays of canopies within the red lined site. Members were shown photographs of the site. He highlighted the properties adjacent to the site and explained that the trees would remain on the boundary.

Members were shown existing and proposed block plans and proposed solar canopies. The arrays of solar panels on the canopies will generate energy to be used by the swimming pool. There would be lighting on the underside of the canopies.

The Senior Planner showed existing and proposed elevations and ran through the proposed conditions. The recommendation was for approval.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about the internal lighting and if it was only activated when there was movement, using a PIR system, or if it was on all the time as he was concerned about the nearby residents. The Senior Planner asked the Leisure Development Partnership Manager and the Construction Director from Pulse Design and Build (the Council's leisure development partner), to answer any technical questions.

The Construction Director explained that the lights under the car port are on a daylight sensor and timer. They will stay on until 10.30pm when the leisure centre closes. Councillor Ninnmey asked if they could be on a PIR sensor. The Construction Director said this could be looked into.

Councillor Hedgley hoped there would be no extra parking charges to over the costs. He asked if there had been any comments from residents. The Senior Planner confirmed there had been none.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if there was any idea on payback time. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager said he didn’t have that information but the Construction Manager said it was about 3 years for the canopies and then you would be in profit.

Councillor Bennett asked if this was our first foray into such facilities. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager said it was and they were looking at putting in others.

Councillor Daly felt he should have declared he has an interest as Cabinet member for Energy and Climate Change. He said we need to follow our decarbonisation agenda and this is part of it. This is a positive for the environment and helps economically. He recommended everyone to support it.

Councillor Bennett asked about security. Does this compromise or raise any issues for people going to their cars and if there was reduced visibility. 

The Construction Manager said the ports are fully open and there is a gap between each canopy. There is full visibility all over the car park. If a PIR is installed, lights will come on as they approach the cars. There are no enclosed sides.

The Leisure Development Partnership Manager said they met with Woodbridge Town Council who asked about security. The height is enough to stop people climbing on them. They believe they are as safe and open as possible.

On the proposition of Councillor Daly, seconded by Councillor Deacon it was unanimously

RESOLVED

 

That the application is recommended for approval and there are no contrary views from consultees.

Conditions: 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the following drawings and documents:
- 0949 - 004 - A: Existing site/block plan (Published 30 January 2026);
- 0949 - 003 - A: Proposed car port planning layout (Published 30 January 2026);
- 005.1 Rev. A: County Arts Club Canopy 1 Side Elevation (Published 30 January 2026);
- SMN1 Rev. B: Carport Single Mono. Typical Elevation Tilted Towards Bay Entrance (Published 20 March 2026);
- LONGOi Hi-MO X10 LR7 - 60HVH 535~560M: PV Product Specification (Published 30 January 2026);
- 0949-LP-P0: Location Plan (Published 30 January 2026);
- 0949 - 005 - P0: Existing House/ Fence Line (Published 30 January 2026);
- Bell Lighting Dura 25W LED Anti-Corrosive 5ft Single Batten with Microwave Sensor - 4000K Product Specification (Published 20 March 2026);
- PA03 Rev. A: Deben LC - Carport Building Side Elevations (Published 20 March 2026);
- PA04 Rev. B: Deben LC - Carport Infront of Houses View (Published 20 March 2026);
- PA02 Rev. A: Deben LC - Carport Planning Layout (Published 20 March 2026);
- Fronius Verto Inverter Product Specification (Published 17 April 2026).

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

3. The hereby approved solar panels and supporting structure shall be fully removed and responsibly disposed of when no longer required or when they reach the end of their useful life.

Reason: In the interest of the historic environment and the protection of the local environment.

4. In the event that contamination which has not already been identified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is found or suspected on the site it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Unless agreed in writing by the LPA no further development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance, removal of underground tanks and relic structures) shall take place until this condition has been complied with in its entirety.

An investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons (see National Planning Policy Framework) and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 and Land Contamination Risk Management) and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the review and confirmation in writing by the Local Planning Authority that likely risks have been identified and will be investigated accordingly.

Where remediation is necessary a detailed Remediation Strategy (RS) must be prepared, and is subject to the review and confirmation in writing by the Local Planning Authority as likely to address the risks identified. The RS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The RS must be carried out in its entirety and the Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.

Following completion of the remediation strategy a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to, reviewed by and confirmed in writing by the LPA as likely to have addressed the risks identified.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

5. Prior to the installation of any fixed plant and machinery (such as inverters and battery storage etc.) a noise assessment based on BS4142:2014+A1:2019 shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

A noise rating level (LAr) of at least 5dB below the typical background sound level (LA90,T) should be achieved at the nearest noise sensitive receptor. Where the noise rating level cannot be achieved, the mitigation measures considered should be explained and the achievable noise level should be identified and justified.

Only the approved plant and machinery shall be installed and thereafter maintained in accordance with manufacturers guidance.

Reason: In the interest of neighbouring amenity and the protection of the local rural environment.

6. Construction and demolition works in connection with the hereby approved development (including deliveries of materials/equipment/spoil to the site and the removal of materials/equipment/spoil from the site) shall only be carried out on site between the following hours:
- 0800 and 1800 Monday to Friday;
- 0800 and 1300 on Saturdays;
- None on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 

Reason: In the interests of amenity and protection of the local environment.

Informatives:
1. The Local Planning Authority has assessed the proposal against all material considerations including planning policies and any comments that may have been received. The planning application has been approved in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and local plan to promote the delivery of sustainable development and to approach decision taking in a positive way.

 2. Biodiversity Net Gain

The effect of paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is that planning permission granted for development of land in England is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition (biodiversity gain condition) that development may not begin until a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority, unless a statutory exemption or transitional arrangement applies (under paragraph 17 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024).

Based on the information available this permission is considered to be one which will not require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because one or more of the statutory exemptions or transitional arrangements is considered to apply.